"Ohio governor signs bill authorizing firefighters the use of flamethrowers to more effectively put out fires" This seems like such a bad solution. How long until a teacher screws up and leaves a...
"Ohio governor signs bill authorizing firefighters the use of flamethrowers to more effectively put out fires"
This seems like such a bad solution. How long until a teacher screws up and leaves a gun exposed? How much fear will this create for the students? I don't care if somebody is legally allowed to carry a gun: it's going to make me feel incredibly unsafe to be near them.
I also don't understand why non-lethal options are never considered instead. Pepper spray or tasers will also put down an active threat, but without literally ending somebody's life in the process. I still don't see any reason for teachers to be equipped with these tools, but it makes infinitely more sense than lethal weapons.
I just don't understand America's cultural obsession with guns.
Considering that during a training session with a mock attack, one of the gung-ho teachers that wanted to carry a gun both shot children during the shooting range phase and then started firing...
This seems like such a bad solution.
Considering that during a training session with a mock attack, one of the gung-ho teachers that wanted to carry a gun both shot children during the shooting range phase and then started firing wildly/blindly during the mock attack phase, I'm going to go with it being an incredibly bad situation and is only going to end up with teachers shooting children.
And despite shooting children and blasting away randomly, the teacher *passed the course.*
Yeah, something like this, just a few specific teachers who are well-trained in safety and certified for something beyond "legally allowed to own a gun" ... coupled with the elimination of cops in...
Yeah, something like this, just a few specific teachers who are well-trained in safety and certified for something beyond "legally allowed to own a gun" ... coupled with the elimination of cops in the school ... I would consider that not exactly a good solution but at least better than what they have now.
At that point you should just hire veterans for that. They'd at least have work and the military is like the only American state institution that properly trains its people...
At that point you should just hire veterans for that. They'd at least have work and the military is like the only American state institution that properly trains its people...
Well, if you mean hire vets to teach, sure. But I really dislike the trend of dedicated police/security in schools. That's what makes them seem like war zones. I realize "teachers packing" isn't a...
Well, if you mean hire vets to teach, sure. But I really dislike the trend of dedicated police/security in schools. That's what makes them seem like war zones. I realize "teachers packing" isn't a big improvement, but if it's just a select few teachers specifically certified to teach responsible gun ownership/use, I feel like it blends into the educational atmosphere better.
PS: I'm not suggesting actually teaching gun use in schools. Just teachers familiar with that curriculum, who can properly field questions from students, and kind of develop that "yeah, he's the gun instructor at our school" vibe, rather than the "yeah, he's here to protect us from psycho killers" vibe.
From an outsider perspective, teachers carrying guns seems problematic. It's potentially a band-aid solution to the immediate problem, but also further entrenches gun culture and the concept of...
From an outsider perspective, teachers carrying guns seems problematic. It's potentially a band-aid solution to the immediate problem, but also further entrenches gun culture and the concept of civilians being armed in public, which is where I think a lot of the problem originates from.
Probably over the next couple of years, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. As the civilian version of the US Army's rifle, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the USA for reasons of...
Probably over the next couple of years, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. As the civilian version of the US Army's rifle, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the USA for reasons of performative masculinity, not just for its effectiveness as a killing machine. But the Army is moving to a rifle that fires heavier rounds, the XM5. The civilian version of that, the Sig Sauer MCX Spear, is likely to be the new favorite for men who want to buy things associated with the Army.
Unfortunately, one of the major reasons that the Army is moving to the XM5 is to more easily handle enemy combatants in modern body armor. You can see how this may be an issue, when police are already reluctant to face people with the AR-15.
As someone who dislikes the US's unhealthy relationship with firearms but still thinks the engineering that goes into them is pretty fascinating, I have to say that the stuff that Sig has done...
As someone who dislikes the US's unhealthy relationship with firearms but still thinks the engineering that goes into them is pretty fascinating, I have to say that the stuff that Sig has done with the XM5 to get it to fire those heavier, body armor piercing rounds while not blowing itself apart in military use is quite interesting from a technical perspective. Ian McCollum over at Forgotten Weapons did an overview/teardown of it recently and goes into a reasonable amount of detail if anyone's interested in learning about it.
This is unlikely if only because the Sig will be under patent protection for quite some time. One of many reasons the AR15 is popular is because it's under no patent protections and the technical...
The civilian version of that, the Sig Sauer MCX Spear, is likely to be the new favorite for men who want to buy things associated with the Army.
This is unlikely if only because the Sig will be under patent protection for quite some time. One of many reasons the AR15 is popular is because it's under no patent protections and the technical data package for it is public knowledge. So anyone that wants one can assemble it with whatever parts they desire. It's the Lego of firearms.
What is likely, since the new round is based off the .308 cartridge, is the AR10 gaining in popularity as it's in the same out-of-patent-protection Lego status.
Admittedly, it's $8k MSRP to the AR's few hundred, which is more of a stretch. It makes it more of a status item, but yeah, it's not going to outnumber the AR for a good while, given the 20...
Admittedly, it's $8k MSRP to the AR's few hundred, which is more of a stretch. It makes it more of a status item, but yeah, it's not going to outnumber the AR for a good while, given the 20 million in the USA. It seems likely that it'll be overrepresented in problematic situations, though.
Oof, hadn't bothered looking up prices, but expected it to have a Sig premium. That puts it pretty firmly in the realm of those that, hmm... how shall we put this... those that encourage others,...
Oof, hadn't bothered looking up prices, but expected it to have a Sig premium. That puts it pretty firmly in the realm of those that, hmm... how shall we put this... those that encourage others, but don't tend to actually do the mass murdering themselves. That's left up to the generally much less well off masses to carry out.
Just as there's plenty of 2A drum beaters with registered full auto guns, but a complete lack of them actually perpetrating any of the terrorist acts. It's almost as if those with five figure firearms aren't all that motivated to actually use them since they'll undoubtedly lose them/their lives.
I wonder if there will be an option to opt out of having your child in a classroom where the teacher carries a gun? I know I wouldn't want my kid in that class. I haven't seen anything about that....
I wonder if there will be an option to opt out of having your child in a classroom where the teacher carries a gun? I know I wouldn't want my kid in that class. I haven't seen anything about that. If the second amendment is all about freedom, where is the choice for people who don't want guns around their children?
Research has shown time and time again that the presence of guns in a situation does not de-escalate violence, it increases it exponentially.
And as @Wes said, it's just a matter of time until a teacher leaves their gun exposed or in an unlocked drawer and a student gets a hold of it. While the teacher has to have a (minimal) amount of training, the students might not have any gun safety training.
That's entirely based on my personal impressions and I have no expertise whatsoever on firearms, but as someone who dealt with mental health issues that since childhood often revolved around...
That's entirely based on my personal impressions and I have no expertise whatsoever on firearms, but as someone who dealt with mental health issues that since childhood often revolved around death, the last thing I'd need would be a bunch of guns lying around at my school. Even if all the teachers were 100% careful and responsible, the mere presence of those guns would trigger endless suicidal ideation.
I imagine that many educators face similar demons, and I expect at least some to quit as a result. There's a reason some people are in education instead of law enforcement. Not everyone can deal with the menacing and suggestive presence of a firearm.
There was already an instance of a principal in Florida leaving his guns unsecured in a locker room. More guns are just more chances for something to go wrong.
There was already an instance of a principal in Florida leaving his guns unsecured in a locker room. More guns are just more chances for something to go wrong.
Unlike most Dems/liberals, I don't think this is automatically a horrible idea. I do believe the Repubs will implement it horribly (basically, I expect any teacher who legally owns a gun will be...
Unlike most Dems/liberals, I don't think this is automatically a horrible idea. I do believe the Repubs will implement it horribly (basically, I expect any teacher who legally owns a gun will be welcome-nay-encouraged to bring 'em into class).
However, if they first removed all the armed school cops, and designated a few teachers who were well-trained (ideally, people certified to teach gun safety and use), to be effectively walking examples of responsible gun ownership, and also, just-in-case, armed and ready in the event of a live shooter situation ... something like that, I see as being a good adjunct to school.
Even in that unlikely event, however, I still see this as one tiny band-aid on one specific symptom of a larger root cause that is still being largely ignored.
My dos centavos.
ETA: Okay, I actually read the article now. Honestly, it's not that bad. Implements a lot of ideas similar to those being discussed in this thread. Fully optional program, requiring a set minimum of extra training, both initially and annual on-going training, and specifying that schools are free to require more training for their version of the program, etc. Still a band-aid, still ignores a lot of, probably, better options. But for what it is, it's mostly the headline that's horrible.
"Ohio governor signs bill authorizing firefighters the use of flamethrowers to more effectively put out fires"
This seems like such a bad solution. How long until a teacher screws up and leaves a gun exposed? How much fear will this create for the students? I don't care if somebody is legally allowed to carry a gun: it's going to make me feel incredibly unsafe to be near them.
I also don't understand why non-lethal options are never considered instead. Pepper spray or tasers will also put down an active threat, but without literally ending somebody's life in the process. I still don't see any reason for teachers to be equipped with these tools, but it makes infinitely more sense than lethal weapons.
I just don't understand America's cultural obsession with guns.
Honestly, a lot of us Americans don't either.
As an American that owns numerous firearms, I don't either.
Considering that during a training session with a mock attack, one of the gung-ho teachers that wanted to carry a gun both shot children during the shooting range phase and then started firing wildly/blindly during the mock attack phase, I'm going to go with it being an incredibly bad situation and is only going to end up with teachers shooting children.
And despite shooting children and blasting away randomly, the teacher *passed the course.*
Yeah, something like this, just a few specific teachers who are well-trained in safety and certified for something beyond "legally allowed to own a gun" ... coupled with the elimination of cops in the school ... I would consider that not exactly a good solution but at least better than what they have now.
At that point you should just hire veterans for that. They'd at least have work and the military is like the only American state institution that properly trains its people...
Well, if you mean hire vets to teach, sure. But I really dislike the trend of dedicated police/security in schools. That's what makes them seem like war zones. I realize "teachers packing" isn't a big improvement, but if it's just a select few teachers specifically certified to teach responsible gun ownership/use, I feel like it blends into the educational atmosphere better.
PS: I'm not suggesting actually teaching gun use in schools. Just teachers familiar with that curriculum, who can properly field questions from students, and kind of develop that "yeah, he's the gun instructor at our school" vibe, rather than the "yeah, he's here to protect us from psycho killers" vibe.
From an outsider perspective, teachers carrying guns seems problematic. It's potentially a band-aid solution to the immediate problem, but also further entrenches gun culture and the concept of civilians being armed in public, which is where I think a lot of the problem originates from.
I look forward to the inevitable article about a teacher getting shot because the police thought they were the shooter.
Or shooters bringing bigger guns because they expect more resistance.
Probably over the next couple of years, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. As the civilian version of the US Army's rifle, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the USA for reasons of performative masculinity, not just for its effectiveness as a killing machine. But the Army is moving to a rifle that fires heavier rounds, the XM5. The civilian version of that, the Sig Sauer MCX Spear, is likely to be the new favorite for men who want to buy things associated with the Army.
Unfortunately, one of the major reasons that the Army is moving to the XM5 is to more easily handle enemy combatants in modern body armor. You can see how this may be an issue, when police are already reluctant to face people with the AR-15.
As someone who dislikes the US's unhealthy relationship with firearms but still thinks the engineering that goes into them is pretty fascinating, I have to say that the stuff that Sig has done with the XM5 to get it to fire those heavier, body armor piercing rounds while not blowing itself apart in military use is quite interesting from a technical perspective. Ian McCollum over at Forgotten Weapons did an overview/teardown of it recently and goes into a reasonable amount of detail if anyone's interested in learning about it.
Oh, interesting. I'll have to check it out.
This is unlikely if only because the Sig will be under patent protection for quite some time. One of many reasons the AR15 is popular is because it's under no patent protections and the technical data package for it is public knowledge. So anyone that wants one can assemble it with whatever parts they desire. It's the Lego of firearms.
What is likely, since the new round is based off the .308 cartridge, is the AR10 gaining in popularity as it's in the same out-of-patent-protection Lego status.
Admittedly, it's $8k MSRP to the AR's few hundred, which is more of a stretch. It makes it more of a status item, but yeah, it's not going to outnumber the AR for a good while, given the 20 million in the USA. It seems likely that it'll be overrepresented in problematic situations, though.
Oof, hadn't bothered looking up prices, but expected it to have a Sig premium. That puts it pretty firmly in the realm of those that, hmm... how shall we put this... those that encourage others, but don't tend to actually do the mass murdering themselves. That's left up to the generally much less well off masses to carry out.
Just as there's plenty of 2A drum beaters with registered full auto guns, but a complete lack of them actually perpetrating any of the terrorist acts. It's almost as if those with five figure firearms aren't all that motivated to actually use them since they'll undoubtedly lose them/their lives.
Heh. Fair enough.
I wonder if there will be an option to opt out of having your child in a classroom where the teacher carries a gun? I know I wouldn't want my kid in that class. I haven't seen anything about that. If the second amendment is all about freedom, where is the choice for people who don't want guns around their children?
Research has shown time and time again that the presence of guns in a situation does not de-escalate violence, it increases it exponentially.
And as @Wes said, it's just a matter of time until a teacher leaves their gun exposed or in an unlocked drawer and a student gets a hold of it. While the teacher has to have a (minimal) amount of training, the students might not have any gun safety training.
That's entirely based on my personal impressions and I have no expertise whatsoever on firearms, but as someone who dealt with mental health issues that since childhood often revolved around death, the last thing I'd need would be a bunch of guns lying around at my school. Even if all the teachers were 100% careful and responsible, the mere presence of those guns would trigger endless suicidal ideation.
I imagine that many educators face similar demons, and I expect at least some to quit as a result. There's a reason some people are in education instead of law enforcement. Not everyone can deal with the menacing and suggestive presence of a firearm.
There was already an instance of a principal in Florida leaving his guns unsecured in a locker room. More guns are just more chances for something to go wrong.
Unlike most Dems/liberals, I don't think this is automatically a horrible idea. I do believe the Repubs will implement it horribly (basically, I expect any teacher who legally owns a gun will be welcome-nay-encouraged to bring 'em into class).
However, if they first removed all the armed school cops, and designated a few teachers who were well-trained (ideally, people certified to teach gun safety and use), to be effectively walking examples of responsible gun ownership, and also, just-in-case, armed and ready in the event of a live shooter situation ... something like that, I see as being a good adjunct to school.
Even in that unlikely event, however, I still see this as one tiny band-aid on one specific symptom of a larger root cause that is still being largely ignored.
My dos centavos.
ETA: Okay, I actually read the article now. Honestly, it's not that bad. Implements a lot of ideas similar to those being discussed in this thread. Fully optional program, requiring a set minimum of extra training, both initially and annual on-going training, and specifying that schools are free to require more training for their version of the program, etc. Still a band-aid, still ignores a lot of, probably, better options. But for what it is, it's mostly the headline that's horrible.